Public sector pay increase

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

No, you are missing the point by treating government finances like business finances. There are no 'investment gains' like in a business - there is GDP growth, which contributes to taxes and debt sustainability.

Completely different dynamics.

Any government spending funded by low interest debt, is going to increase GDP, simply by putting money into the private sector.
I agree that it's better to do this in the most efficient way possible, but even if you do it in the least efficient way possible, it still leads to GDP growth.

Agreed, but the benefit of the investment must be greater than the cost of the loan. There are different dynamics at play with government yes, but this must stay the same.

KomradeBishop

jcon1913 wrote: »

Say you owe 100 at 01/01/13. You have a shortfall of 10 for the year. At the end of the year 31/12/13 you owe 110. Repayments in 2013 were 10 and interest was 3. In 2014 repayments are 11 and interest is still 3. The 10 extra you borrowed is gone because you import a lot of consumer goods. Taxes went up but spending went up too. And now you owe more than at the start of the year.

It makes no sense. None at all.

Heres a fact for you recently the UK finished oaying the US some loans. For World War 2. So its future generations of Irish people who will eventually pay back lenders children money borrowed to fund shortfalls in taxes as against spending. No sense.

How am I doing?

You're treating government finances, like business finances...you're also assuming 3% interest, when our government debt interest is at it's lowest rate in over 30 years...

It's easy to make something look bad, when you're just creating a totally imaginary scenario to suit your argument, which does not represent reality in any way.

You're not doing well. Research economics. Learn about how debt sustainability works for governments - how it is completely different to personal/business finances.

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Agreed, but the benefit of the investment must be greater than the cost of the loan. There are different dynamics at play with government yes, but this must stay the same.

Ok - and yes, if the interest rate on the loan is too high, the GDP boost may not be enough to be sustainable - reiterating again though, we have the lowest interest rates on public debt in more than 30 years, so it would actually be hard for increased spending to (no matter how inefficient) make debt less sustainable, rather than more sustainable, right now.

jcon1913

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're treating government finances, like business finances...you're also assuming 3% interest, when our government debt interest is at it's lowest rate in over 30 years...

It's easy to make something look bad, when you're just creating a totally imaginary scenario to suit your argument, which does not represent reality in any way.

You're not doing well. Research economics. Learn about how debt sustainability works for governments - how it is completely different to personal/business finances.

Stop cutting and pasting rameis from wkipedia. Try the English language.

If you cant explain why we should borrow to spend on day to day items then admit you cant and stop posting.

Iwasfrozen

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ok - and yes, if the interest rate on the loan is too high, the GDP boost may not be enough to be sustainable - reiterating again though, we have the lowest interest rates on public debt in more than 30 years, so it would actually be hard for increased spending to (no matter how inefficient) make debt less sustainable, rather than more sustainable, right now.

This is where we disagree, on how much a boost to gdp increased spending of borrowed money would bring. I believe a boost to infrastructure spending could be useful but spending money on increased wages is throwing good money after bad.

Also you must take into consideration the increased risk borrowing brings, obviously the more money a country has borrowed the more at risk they are to market fluctuations. While interest rates are low we should be working to build up a budget surplus before they rise again.

Letree

BoatMad wrote: »

Look at the PS expansion from 1995, we have over 100,000 extra PS staff, these all have to be paid for.

So there was 190,000 working in the PS in 1995?

PowerToWait

Some crew of cribbing whiners on here! Why anyone gives a damn what the other person gets in salary and what for is beyond me. Let alone post 30 odd pages of shìte about them.

Just mind your own house and stop cribbing about next door.

Quin_Dub

Letree wrote: »

So there was 190,000 working in the PS in 1995?

Yep..

See here - Data only goes up to 2012 , but shows all the historical levels

1995 - bit hard to read the graph , but would appear to be ~210,000 total PS staff..

2008 - Peak level when staff levels are about 320,000

Which is about a 35% growth rate..

In comparison , total population in 1995 was 3.6M and grew to 4.5M in 2008 , or about a 20% growth.

So the public service grew ~40% more than the population did in the same period..

blackcard

test3test wrote: »

And who was supposed to regulate and control the banks and the economy?

The regulator, the central bank, the dept of finance, the government....all public service.

Now people on the PS want a payrise and yet we still are borrowing many billions per year and the country owes 200 billion debt .... no way should the government award pay rises. There are lots of other areas that were decimated during the crash. The public servise is still overpaid.

It turns out the banks were lying and auditors were not doing their job as well as the regulator

twowheelsonly

BoatMad wrote: »

Thats a abuse of the statistics, many PS do third level qualifications because simply having a masters etc gets you more money , even if its not work related.

In the private sector , credentialism , while important, is less valuable then ability and experience. A factor sadly lacking from promotion decisions in the PS

No one should get more money simply because they have qualification x or Y.

In Nursing and Teaching that may (or may not) be true but certainly in my sector ability and experience are the biggest factors in promotions in most cases.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What if there are no fires to put out ? Do you keep a high volume of staff just in-case ?

No you sack them all. When Darkpagandeath crashes his car or his house goes on fire we can recruit again. You might have to wait a bit longer for them to turn up but sure as long as they're not sitting on their arses getting overpaid that's fine too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - People such as Firemen, Gardai, Prison Officers and a few more don't necessarily get paid for what they do but what they're prepared to do.

@darkpagandeath - I don't know what you work at or how much you get paid (please do feel free to tell us ) but your obsession (but lack of understanding) with PS workers and wages is mind boggling. It must be half a dozen times on this thread that you've come out and said that Irish PS workers are paid more than their equivalents in Europe. SO DO PRIVATE SECTOR. We have a higher cost of living than most of these places. They're also paid more than their equivalents in Kenya, Nepal, Uruguay and India if you want further comparisons.

Letree

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yep..

See here - Data only goes up to 2012 , but shows all the historical levels

1995 - bit hard to read the graph , but would appear to be ~210,000 total PS staff..

2008 - Peak level when staff levels are about 320,000

Which is about a 35% growth rate..

In comparison , total population in 1995 was 3.6M and grew to 4.5M in 2008 , or about a 20% growth.

So the public service grew ~40% more than the population did in the same period..

The number now is 290,000.

BTW 3.6 million to 4.59 million in 2015 is an increase of 28%.

Increase 210,000 by 28% = 270,000

Also society has changed a lot since 1995. More services are being provided. We have more Social Workers, OT's, Physio's, Speech Therapists, Home Help workers, Teachers, Guards, Psychiatric Nurses etc etc. Society wouldn't tolerate 1995 levels of service today.

ardmacha

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yep..

See here - Data only goes up to 2012 , but shows all the historical levels

1995 - bit hard to read the graph , but would appear to be ~210,000 total PS staff..

2008 - Peak level when staff levels are about 320,000

Which is about a 35% growth rate..

In comparison , total population in 1995 was 3.6M and grew to 4.5M in 2008 , or about a 20% growth.

So the public service grew ~40% more than the population did in the same period..

This is all very interesting, but the PS numbers have declined and the population has increased since 2008.

crusier

I begrudge everyone else a pay rise, I'm Irish!

Quin_Dub

Letree wrote: »

The number now is 290,000.

BTW 3.6 million to 4.59 million in 2015 is an increase of 28%.

Increase 210,000 by 28% = 270,000

Also society has changed a lot since 1995. More services are being provided. We have more Social Workers, OT's, Physio's, Speech Therapists, Home Help workers, Teachers, Guards, Psychiatric Nurses etc etc. Society wouldn't tolerate 1995 levels of service today.

My error - 4.5M is 20% higher than 3.6M , but you are of course correct , coming from 3.6M it is a 28% increase.

I accept that society has changed and has different needs..

However I'd submit that the growth in staffing levels was not delivered to the areas that really needed the growth..

The fundamental issue with the PS is value for money.. and I simply don't think we are seeing a maximised return on the money spent.

Mongfinder General

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yep..

See here - Data only goes up to 2012 , but shows all the historical levels

1995 - bit hard to read the graph , but would appear to be ~210,000 total PS staff..

2008 - Peak level when staff levels are about 320,000
In 2007
Which is about a 35% growth rate..

In comparison , total population in 1995 was 3.6M and grew to 4.5M in 2008 , or about a 20% growth.

So the public service grew ~40% more than the population did in the same period..

In 2007 the PS made up 1 in 6 jobs in Ireland. In the mid 1980's t was 1 in 3

osarusan

Mongfinder General wrote: »

In 2007 the PS made up 1 in 6 jobs in Ireland. In the mid 1980's t was 1 in 3

Probably massive unemployment would have been a factor at that time.

test3test

Mongfinder General wrote: »

In 2007 the PS made up 1 in 6 jobs in Ireland. In the mid 1980's t was 1 in 3

1 in 2 in the public service in the 1980's done nothing at all at all.

bobbysands81

test3test wrote: »

That is doubtful, given that average public sector pension is currently worth €34,623 per year.
Do not forget the tax free 18 months pay you get on retirement too. How many private sector workers get that?

I present you with facts and you say that's 'doubtful'.

My occupational pension will be approx 17k.

My Contributory OAP will be approx 12k (I think). I haven't included contributions to this in my calculations.

crusier

bobbysands81 wrote: »

I present you with facts and you say that's 'doubtful'.

My occupational pension will be approx 17k.

My Contributory OAP will be approx 12k (I think). I haven't included contributions to this in my calculations.

You won't starve bobbysands81

darkpagandeath

twowheelsonly wrote: »

In Nursing and Teaching that may (or may not) be true but certainly in my sector ability and experience are the biggest factors in promotions in most cases.



No you sack them all. When Darkpagandeath crashes his car or his house goes on fire we can recruit again. You might have to wait a bit longer for them to turn up but sure as long as they're not sitting on their arses getting overpaid that's fine too.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - People such as Firemen, Gardai, Prison Officers and a few more don't necessarily get paid for what they do but what they're prepared to do.

@darkpagandeath - I don't know what you work at or how much you get paid (please do feel free to tell us ) but your obsession (but lack of understanding) with PS workers and wages is mind boggling. It must be half a dozen times on this thread that you've come out and said that Irish PS workers are paid more than their equivalents in Europe. SO DO PRIVATE SECTOR. We have a higher cost of living than most of these places. They're also paid more than their equivalents in Kenya, Nepal, Uruguay and India if you want further comparisons.

Again using the fact that we have high wages here to justify even higher PS worker wages is ridiculous or is the hyperbole more important ?

KomradeBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

This is where we disagree, on how much a boost to gdp increased spending of borrowed money would bring. I believe a boost to infrastructure spending could be useful but spending money on increased wages is throwing good money after bad.

Also you must take into consideration the increased risk borrowing brings, obviously the more money a country has borrowed the more at risk they are to market fluctuations. While interest rates are low we should be working to build up a budget surplus before they rise again.

Putting more money into the private sector through government spending - almost any government spending - with much of it passing through as increased aggregate demand, increases GDP full stop.

A budget surplus removes money from the private sector, helping to push GDP down, and reduces future tax intake, requiring yet more cutting if you want to maintain a surplus - so your policy there makes our debt to GDP less sustainable, and more risky.

barneystinson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Again using the fact that we have high wages here to justify even higher PS worker wages is ridiculous or is the hyperbole more important ?

You never PM'ed me after my invitation last night... not interested in specific real world examples of where the private sector worker is better paid than their PS equivalent...?

darkpagandeath

barneystinson wrote: »

You never PM'ed me after my invitation last night... not interested in specific real world examples of where the private sector worker is better paid than their PS equivalent...?

What's the point we have been told again and again either.

Comparing public service to private is impossible.

Or it's because private sector wages is high. So that's why theirs is higher again.

Or some other reason. That's not really factually related to PS being paid more.

jcon1913

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Putting more money into the private sector through government spending - almost any government spending - with much of it passing through as increased aggregate demand, increases GDP full stop.

A budget surplus removes money from the private sector, helping to push GDP down, and reduces future tax intake, requiring yet much cutting if you want to maintain a surplus - so your policy there makes our debt to GDP less sustainable, and more risky.

How many times? This is voodoo. Who is going to pay these loans?

Heres a few gems of wisdom for you from down the ages:

''As a country we are living way beyond our means''

Link:
http://www.thejournal.ie/charlie-haughey-were-living-way-beyond-our-means-1755468-Nov2014/

''Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery'' - Charles Dickens

We cannot continue to borrow money - no amount of mumbo jumbo is going to change that, and you should desist when you cannot explain how borrowing more money is going to help this country, beyond waffling using terms no-one here understands, unless they have studied Ecomonics. You clearly have, and yet cannot explain how this theory of spending your way out of an economic trough works.

Heres a quick summary:

John Keynes an economist in the early 20th century had a theory that governments should borrow to boost demand, since markets on their own could never guarantee full employment, which was viewed as ideal.

Keynes' theories gained popularity after the start of World War 2, and afterwards became the assumed best practise i.e. that markets only worked well when governments interfered in them by spending large amounts of a country's money.

From 1979 these ideas were questioned by people and politicians who believed the theories of an economist called Milton Friedman who predicted in his 1963 book that Keynesian policies would lead to unemployment and inflation - what Friedman called Stagflation. Friedmans ideas became fashionable for a while, although there was a return to Keynes theories after the crashes of 2007 and onwards.

Personally I don't think the ''spend your way out of a recession by borrowing'' theory is suitable to a small open economy like Ireland because so much of consumer spending leaves the country being spent on imported consumer goods. As mentioned by previous posters spending on infastructure eg roads, schools, hospitals may be the exception, as the period the benefit accrues to the community is matched by the period of the loans taken to build improvements.

Kelly06

There are plenty of examples where a private sector worker receives better pay than a public servant ... Take the professional grades for example engineers or solicitors. A basic solicitors role is paid far far below what a solicitor in the private sector would be on with the same experience. The trade off here is the ability to clock off at 6 at the latest and the generous leave allowance. Similar for engineers they are just two examples that I can think of.

I was looking at a payslip today at the deductions taken and wondering do people actually realise that an extra tax was added that is more or less the same deduction as the usc. Now we all hate usc with a passion so imagine if the government decided to double your usc overnight?

in my role I'm paid more or less what a private sector counterpart would be paid. I have the benefit of a more generous leave allocation and more flexibility in my hours of attendance. I pay far more tax than I would in the private sector however.

barneystinson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What's the point we have been told again and again either.

Comparing public service to private is impossible.

Or it's because private sector wages is high. So that's why theirs is higher again.

Or some other reason. That's not really factually related to PS being paid more.

Soooooooo.....

You're saying PS is higher paid. I'm offering to give you a direct example of a category of worker where this is not the case.

So is it that you:

1. simply don't want to see actual evidence of direct comparisons,
2. accept that across the board comparisons of the type you've been trying to make is a nonsense, or
3. something else?

barneystinson

Kelly06 wrote: »

There are plenty of examples where a private sector worker receives better pay than a public servant ... Take the professional grades for example engineers or solicitors. A basic solicitors role is paid far far below what a solicitor in the private sector would be on with the same experience. The trade off here is the ability to clock off at 6 at the latest and the generous leave allowance. Similar for engineers they are just two examples that I can think of.

I was looking at a payslip today at the deductions taken and wondering do people actually realise that an extra tax was added that is more or less the same deduction as the usc. Now we all hate usc with a passion so imagine if the government decided to double your usc overnight?

in my role I'm paid more or less what a private sector counterpart would be paid. I have the benefit of a more generous leave allocation and more flexibility in my hours of attendance. I pay far more tax than I would in the private sector however.

No Kelly, you don't pay more tax, that's a bit of a silly statement TBH.

I presume you're talking about the PRD. That's not a tax, it's a paycut by another name...

darkpagandeath

barneystinson wrote: »

Soooooooo.....

You're saying PS is higher paid. I'm offering to give you a direct example of a category of worker where this is not the case.

So is it that you:

1. simply don't want to see actual evidence of direct comparisons,
2. accept that across the board comparisons of the type you've been trying to make is a nonsense, or
3. something else?

The overwhelming amount of stats says otherwise. They have been brought in line the last while with the pay cuts. Now I guarantee they want that completely reversed and increases on top. Do some deserve pay rises I'm sure a lot do in line with private sector and inflation nothing more. But that's not how it works everyone or no one is the norm. Turning the tap back on from the glory days will just be a kick in the face to those that helped get this country back on it's feet.

Kelly06

barneystinson wrote: »

No Kelly, you don't pay more tax, that's a bit of a silly statement TBH.

I see the pension levy as a tax purely for the reason that it doesn't relate to your pension. You are actually charged it on your wage regardless if you are entitled to a pension at all. For example if you get a 1 year contact in the ps the pension related deduction is deducted but you are not eligible to be a member of the pension scheme and draw down benefits with less than two years service ...That is a fact. Most of the public servants I know feel the same.

Kelly06

barneystinson wrote: »

I presume you're talking about the PRD. That's not a tax, it's a paycut by another name...

As far as I'm aware the PRD is paid to your employer and goes into the pot for funding of that department, local authority or organisation etc.

barneystinson

Kelly06 wrote: »

I see the pension levy as a tax purely for the reason that it doesn't relate to your pension. You are actually charged it on your wage regardless if you are entitled to a pension at all. For example if you get a 1 year contact in the ps the pension related deduction is deducted but you are not eligible to be a member of the pension scheme and draw down benefits with less than two years service ...That is a fact. Most of the public servants I know feel the same.

Well I'm a public servant paying it too, and I don't feel the same, nor AFAIK do the people I work with.

It's not a tax, because it's not levied under the taxes acts, but under the FEMPI legislation. It is a deduction from pay.

Kelly06

barneystinson wrote: »

Well I'm a public servant paying it too, and I don't feel the same, nor AFAIK do the people I work with.

It's not a tax, because it's not levied under the taxes acts, but under the FEMPI legislation. It is a deduction from pay.

We will have to agree to disagree. Either way they take it, thats all I care about ! Personally I don't need a pay rise I manage on my wage so don't care if I get it or not! I just think that people should know that there's a big difference between the take home pay on a wage of say 30,000 in the private sector and ps.

barneystinson

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The overwhelming amount of stats says otherwise. They have been brought in line the last while with the pay cuts. Now I guarantee they want that completely reversed and increases on top. Do some deserve pay rises I'm sure a lot do in line with private sector and inflation nothing more. But that's not how it works everyone or no one is the norm. Turning the tap back on from the glory days will just be a kick in the face to those that helped get this country back on it's feet.

Here's a statistic for you - the average person in this country has 0.99 testicles.

Now, let's say there's someone in the next room and you don't know their gender.

If I ask you to guess how many testicles they have, to the nearest whole nut, and if you get it right you'll win a grand, will your guess be 1, because the available stats tell you so...???

I've offered to show you the nuts, but you'd rather stick to the clearly irrelevant stats...

barneystinson

barneystinson wrote: »

Well I'm a public servant paying it too, and I don't feel the same, nor AFAIK do the people I work with.

It's not a tax, because it's not levied under the taxes acts, but under the FEMPI legislation. It is a deduction from pay.

As far as I'm concerned everything in the deduction list of my payslip is a tax bar the pension deduction. The pension levy is nothing but another tax and the fact its more than the actual pension deduction is even more disgusting.

darkpagandeath

barneystinson wrote: »

Here's a statistic for you - the average person in this country has 0.99 testicles.

Now, let's say there's someone in the next room and you don't know their gender.

If I ask you to guess how many testicles they have, to the nearest whole nut, and if you get it right you'll win a grand, will your guess be 1, because the available stats tell you so...???

I've offered to show you the nuts, but you'd rather stick to the clearly irrelevant stats...

:pac:

Kelly06

barneystinson wrote: »

Here's a statistic for you - the average person in this country has 0.99 testicles.

Now, let's say there's someone in the next room and you don't know their gender.

If I ask you to guess how many testicles they have, to the nearest whole nut, and if you get it right you'll win a grand, will your guess be 1, because the available stats tell you so...???

I've offered to show you the nuts, but you'd rather stick to the clearly irrelevant stats...

Show us the nuts already will ye

barneystinson

Kelly06 wrote: »

We will have to agree to disagree. Either way they take it, thats all I care about ! Personally I don't need a pay rise I manage on my wage so don't care if I get it or not! I just think that people should know that there's a big difference between the take home pay on a wage of say 30,000 in the private sector and ps.

Agreed. I took a 15% drop in gross pay, and about 20% in net pay, on joining the civil service a few years back.

jcon1913

barneystinson wrote: »

Agreed. I took a 15% drop in gross pay, and about 20% in net pay, on joining the civil service a few years back.

Barney would you ever resign and come to the private sectir. That way youd be too tired for these late night debates

KomradeBishop

jcon1913 wrote: »

How many times? This is voodoo. Who is going to pay these loans?

Heres a few gems of wisdom for you from down the ages:

''As a country we are living way beyond our means''

Link:
http://www.thejournal.ie/charlie-haughey-were-living-way-beyond-our-means-1755468-Nov2014/

''Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pound ought and six, result misery'' - Charles Dickens

We cannot continue to borrow money - no amount of mumbo jumbo is going to change that, and you should desist when you cannot explain how borrowing more money is going to help this country, beyond waffling using terms no-one here understands, unless they have studied Ecomonics. You clearly have, and yet cannot explain how this theory of spending your way out of an economic trough works.

Heres a quick summary:

John Keynes an economist in the early 20th century had a theory that governments should borrow to boost demand, since markets on their own could never guarantee full employment, which was viewed as ideal.

Keynes' theories gained popularity after the start of World War 2, and afterwards became the assumed best practise i.e. that markets only worked well when governments interfered in them by spending large amounts of a country's money.

From 1979 these ideas were questioned by people and politicians who believed the theories of an economist called Milton Friedman who predicted in his 1963 book that Keynesian policies would lead to unemployment and inflation - what Friedman called Stagflation. Friedmans ideas became fashionable for a while, although there was a return to Keynes theories after the crashes of 2007 and onwards.

Personally I don't think the ''spend your way out of a recession by borrowing'' theory is suitable to a small open economy like Ireland because so much of consumer spending leaves the country being spent on imported consumer goods. As mentioned by previous posters spending on infastructure eg roads, schools, hospitals may be the exception, as the period the benefit accrues to the community is matched by the period of the loans taken to build improvements.

If the quality of your last post was:

jcon1913 wrote:

Stop cutting and pasting rameis from wkipedia. Try the English language.

If you cant explain why we should borrow to spend on day to day items then admit you cant and stop posting.

Why did you think I would bother with your further posts?

If you can't even get the interest rate on our public debt right, and then just come up with above-quoted garbage when that is pointed out to you, then that's a pretty heavy signifier that you're a waste of time to try and debate with - as it just gives the impression you're trying to fling shít rather than debate.

Our interest rate on government debt is presently 0.65% - I was actually wrong earlier, this isn't the lowest of the last 30 years, seems it is the lowest public debt interest rate ever for Ireland.

At an interest rate that low, your claims about unsustainability of funding through increased debt, are just unsubstantiated nonsense.

twowheelsonly

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Again using the fact that we have high wages here to justify even higher PS worker wages is ridiculous or is the hyperbole more important ?

'Even Higher' ???? You still have to provide the real life examples of that despite being asked by many here to do so. You're apparently the expert on hyperbole BTW.

barneystinson wrote: »

You never PM'ed me after my invitation last night... not interested in specific real world examples of where the private sector worker is better paid than their PS equivalent...?

..... I get the feeling that you'll be waiting.....

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What's the point we have been told again and again either.

Comparing public service to private is impossible.

Or it's because private sector wages is high. So that's why theirs is higher again.

Or some other reason. That's not really factually related to PS being paid more.

It's not impossible. A direct comparison may be difficult in a lot of cases but 'value of the job' is not impossible to compare to another.
For instance, if you tell us what you do and how much you get paid then maybe we can decide if you're worth that.
Otherwise we can just come out with ridiculous sweeping and unfounded statements.

All Private Sector workers are overpaid BTW. They're lazy and unmotivated and just want loads of money for doing nothing. They get the highest wages in Europe for equivalent work but they still want more but want to keep everyone else down.


I'm done here......

bobbysands81

barneystinson wrote: »

No Kelly, you don't pay more tax, that's a bit of a silly statement TBH.

I presume you're talking about the PRD. That's not a tax, it's a paycut by another name...

No, it's a tax on Public Sector workers.

If it was a tax it wouldn't appear as a deduction from our gross pay on our wage slips. As it stands it increases our gross pay and reduces our net pay. It exists.

bobbysands81

twowheelsonly wrote: »

All Private Sector workers are overpaid BTW. They're lazy and unmotivated and just want loads of money for doing nothing. They get the highest wages in Europe for equivalent work but they still want more but want to keep everyone else down.


I'm done here......

Wow!

Looks like someone failed the Civil Service exams!

strobe

What's the median wage in the public sector?

barneystinson

jcon1913 wrote: »

Barney would you ever resign and come to the private sectir. That way youd be too tired for these late night debates

No thanks, I prefer being a gamekeeper than a poacher. Helps me sleep better for those few hours each night...

Also, this assumption that all PS jobs are somehow a cushy number is hilarious - it's labour force snobbery! - I never worked as many hours in the private sector as I have for the last couple of years in the PS, and I've spent more than half of my working life to date in the private sector.

In fact there's simply no way I'd work the hours I presently do, for a private sector employer, I'd tell my employer to feck off and hire to replace at least one of the two people who retired and whose jobs I'm now also doing a substantial chunk of... But since that's largely outside of the control of my boss and I in the PS, I just get on with it.

(And if I do get fed up of it I can always get a cushy job in the private sector, or go self employed, and make easier money using the skills and knowledge my PS career has helped me acquire...)

barneystinson

strobe wrote: »

What's the median wage in the public service?

I dunno, but the median Irish person has no balls! :eek:

(Hey Darkpagandeath, you have my permission to introduce that stat over on the Irish Water thread )

barneystinson

bobbysands81 wrote: »

No, it's a tax on Public Sector workers.

If it was a tax it wouldn't appear as a deduction from our gross pay on our wage slips. As it stands it increases our gross pay and reduces our net pay. It exists.

It exists, but that doesn't mean it's a tax. That's just silly. A tax is a tax, and it's not a tax. Saying a thing doesn't make it true Robert.

It appears as a deduction from your gross pay, because the first FEMPI Act 2009 says so. Show me where the statute says it's a tax and you win the internet.

The FEMPI Act did also make changes to Income Tax, but this wasn't one of them.

barneystinson

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Wow!

Looks like someone failed the Civil Service exams!

Yeah, you. :pac:

Hint: Reread the post and see who he/she is actually referring to...

jank

It seems people have not even mentioned or at least barely mentioned what would be given in return for wage increases? The state would get much better ROI if they invested in Infrastructure and facilities. Better roads, a metro, better funded classrooms, IT systems in the HSE that talk to each other and work, IT systems in the social welfare office that brings us to the 21st century, better Garda cars, computers in the Garda cars that can make crime detection and prevention more efficient. The list is endless.

We spent the 10 years of 1998 to 2008 shoveling money into the pockets of PS workers with no regard for work place changes, productivity, reform or practices. The whole thing was a con and a scam even today defenders of the PS recognise this. What did Joe o'Toole say to perpetual complaining Teachers, Bench-marking was like walking up to an ATM!

If we are going to be increasing spends in departments then it should be done where the best ROI can be gotten, not where the votes are. Hence why Public sector pay should be brought out of the hands of the government like in a lot of other OECD countries.

al22

Jobs should be paid for what one actually doing, salaries should not depend on education, age and money available to pay for that work.


Otherwise I see a job of cleaning can start from say 15,000 pa in one case and the same job be paid over 150,000 just because a person has 20 years of experience, old age, 5 universities graduated and speek 10 languages.

But finally it is the same job to sweep a floor.

ardmacha

It seems people have not even mentioned or at least barely mentioned what would be given in return for wage increases?

Presumably it will be the reverse of what happened with the pay cuts.

The state would get much better ROI if they invested in Infrastructure and facilities. Better roads, a metro, better funded classrooms, IT systems in the HSE that talk to each other and work, IT systems in the social welfare office that brings us to the 21st century, better Garda cars, computers in the Garda cars that can make crime detection and prevention more efficient. The list is endless.

Funding all of these things is the responsibility of all citizens, not just the PS.

Hence why Public sector pay should be brought out of the hands of the government like in a lot of other OECD countries.

But this would spoil the rants on Boards.ie.